Part 41

[Footnote 235: _Cf._ Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 302.]

[Footnote 236: Frazer, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ 73. _Idem_, 'Folk-Lore in the Old Testament,' in _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor_, p. 110.]

[Footnote 237: Egede, _op. cit._ p. 197.]

[Footnote 238: Tylor, _Researches into the Early History of Mankind_, p. 144. Nyrop, 'Navnets magt,' in _Mindre afhandlinger udgivne af det philologisk-historiske samfund_, pp. 147-151, 190 _sq._ and _passim_. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 421 _sqq._ Clodd, _Tom Tit Tot_, p. 166 _sqq._ Nansen, _Eskimo Life_, p. 230 _sq._ (Greenlanders). Müller, _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_, p. 84 (North American Indians). Bourke, 'Medicine-Men of the Apache,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ ix. 462. Batchelor, _Ainu and their Folk-Lore_, p. 242. Georgi, _op. cit._ iii. 27, 28, 262 _sq._ (Samoyedes and shamanistic peoples in Siberia). Jackson, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxiv. 406 (Samoyedes). Rivers, _Todas_, p. 625 _sqq._ Crooke, _Tribes and Castes of the North-Western Provinces_, i. 11 (Agariya, a Dravidian tribe), von Wlislocki, _Volksglaube der Zigeuner_, p. 96 (Gypsies). Yseldijk, in _Glimpses of the Eastern Archipelago_, p. 42. (Kotting, in the island of Flores). Roth, _North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines_, p. 164. Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 498. Fraser, _Aborigines of New South Wales_, p. 82. Thornton, in Hill and Thornton, _Aborigines of New South Wales_, p. 7. Fison and Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 249 (Kurnai). Curr, _Squatting in Victoria_, p. 272 (Bangerang). Hinde, _op. cit._ p. 50 (Masai). Duveyrier, _Exploration du Sahara_, p. 415 (Touareg). Werner, 'Custom of "Hlonipa,"' in _Jour. African Soc._ 1905, April, p. 346 (Zulus).]

[Footnote 239: Swan, _Residence in Washington Territory_, p. 189.]

[Footnote 240: I had much difficulty in inducing my teacher in Shel[h.]a, a Berber from the Great Atlas Mountains, to tell me the equivalent for "illness" in his own language; and when he finally did so, he spat immediately afterwards. Among the Central Australian Arunta the older men will not look at the photograph of a deceased person (Gillen, 'Aborigines of the McDonnell Ranges,' in _Report of the Horn Expedition_, iv. 'Anthropology,' p. 168).]

[Footnote 241: Simons, 'Exploration of the Goajira Peninsula,' in _Proceed. Roy. Geograph. Soc._ N. S. vii. 791.]

By all this I certainly do not mean to assert that the funeral and mourning customs to which I have just referred have exclusively or in every case originated in fear of the dead or of the pollution of death. Burial may also be genuinely intended to protect the body from beasts or birds; and the same may be the case with mounds, tombstones, and enclosures.[242] Some savages are reported to burn the dead in order to prevent their bodies from falling into the hands of enemies,[243] which might be bad both for the dead and for their friends, as charms might be made from the corpses.[244] Moreover, cremation does away with the slow process of transformation to which a dead body is naturally subject, and this process is regarded not only as a danger to the living but also as painful to the deceased himself.[245] The same object may be achieved by exposing the corpse to wild animals. And we should also remember that the putrefactive process {547} itself, whether accompanied by any superstitious ideas or not, is a sufficient motive for disposing of the dead body in some way or other--either by burial or cremation or exposure; and if one method is held objectionable another will be resorted to. Among the Masai the custom of throwing away corpses is said to spring from the notion that to bury them would be to poison the soil;[246] and the Zoroastrian law enjoining the exposure of the dead was closely connected with the sacredness ascribed to fire and earth and the consequent dread of polluting them.

[Footnote 242: Cranz, _op. cit._ i. 217 (Greenlanders). Turner, in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xi. 192 (Hudson Bay Eskimo). Yarrow, _ibid._ i. 102 (Wichita Indians). Dunbar, in _Magazine of American History_, viii. 734 (Pawnee Indians). Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 87.]

[Footnote 243: Hyades and Deniker, _op. cit._ vii. 379 (Fuegians). Preuss, _op. cit._ p. 310 (Seminole Indians of Florida).]

[Footnote 244: Ralph, quoted by Hartland, _Legend of Perseus_, ii. 437 (Haidahs of British Columbia).]

[Footnote 245: See Hertz, _loc. cit._ p. 71.]

[Footnote 246: Thomson, _Through Masai Land_, p. 259.]

Again, as for the mutilations and self-inflicted wounds which accompany funerals, I have suggested in a previous chapter that they may be partly practised for the purpose of refreshing the departed soul with human blood;[247] or, as Dr. Hirn observes, they may be instinctive efforts to procure that relief from overpowering feelings which is afforded by pain and the subsequent exhaustion.[248] The reluctance to name the dead may, in some measure, be traced to a natural unwillingness in his old friends to revive past sorrows.[249] And with reference to the mourning apparel, Dr. de Groot believes--if rightly or wrongly I am not in a position to decide--that, so far as China is concerned, it originated in the custom of sacrificing to the dead the clothes on one's own back. He thinks that this explanation is confirmed by the fact that in the age of Confucius it was customary for the mourners to throw off their clothes as far as decency allowed when the corpse was being dressed.[250]

[Footnote 247: _Supra_, i. 476.]

[Footnote 248: Hirn, _Origins of Art_, p. 66 _sq._]

[Footnote 249: Fison and Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 249 (Kurnai). Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 422.]

[Footnote 250: de Groot, _op. cit._ (vol. ii. book) i. 475 _sq._]

There are several reasons why practices connected with death which originally sprang from self-regarding motives have come to be enjoined as duties. We have first to remember the various factors mentioned above[251] which tend to make self-regarding conduct a matter of moral concern. {548} But in this case the transition from the prudential to the obligatory has been much facilitated by the circumstance that all the acts which a person's self-interest induces him to perform or to abstain from have direct reference to another individual, and, indeed, to an individual who is supposed to reward benefits bestowed upon him or at all events to resent injuries and neglect. These punishments and rewards sent by the departed soul are all the more readily recognised to be well deserved, as the claims of the dead are similar in nature to those of the living and are at the same time in some degree supported by sympathetic feelings in the survivors. Nor is it difficult to explain why even such practices as are not originally supposed to comfort the dead have assumed the character of duties towards them. The dead are not only beings whom it is dangerous to offend and useful to please, but they are also very easily duped. No wonder therefore that the living are anxious to put the most amiable interpretation upon their conduct, trying to persuade the ghost, as also one another, that they do what they do for _his_ benefit, not for their own. It is better for him to have rest in his grave than to wander about on earth unhappy and homeless. It is better for him to enjoy the heat of the flames than to suffer from the cold of an arctic climate. It is better for him to be eaten by an animal--say, a beautiful dog or a hyæna sent by God--than to lie and rot in the open air. And all the mourning customs, what are they if not tokens of grief? Moreover, if the corpse is not properly disposed of or any funeral or mourning rite calculated to keep off the ghost is not observed, the dead man will easily do harm to the survivors. And does not this indicate that they have been neglectful of their duties to him?

[Footnote 251: _Supra_, ii. 266 _sq._]

The mixture of sympathy and fear which is at the bottom of the duties to the dead accounts for the fact that these duties are rarely extended to strangers. A departed stranger is not generally an object of either pity or fear. He expects attention from his own people only, he haunts his own home. But he may of course be dangerous to {549} anybody who directly offends him, for instance by inflicting an injury upon his body, or to people who live in the vicinity of his grave. We are told that the Angami Nagas bestow as much care on the tombs of foes who have fallen near their villages as on those of their own warriors.[252] So also the differences in the treatment of the dead which depend upon age, sex, and social position are no doubt closely connected with variations in the feelings of sympathy, respect, or fear,[253] although in many cases we are unable to explain those differences in detail. Among the Australian natives women and children are said to be interred with little ceremony because they are held to be very inferior to men while alive and consequently are not much feared after death;[254] and if in Eastern Central Africa the attention usually bestowed upon the dead is not extended to children which die when four or five days old, the reason seems to be that such children are hardly supposed to possess a soul.[255] We may assume that the special treatment to which the bodies of criminals are subject is due not only to indignation but, in some instances at least, to fear of their ghosts. And we have noticed above that suicides, murdered persons, and those struck with lightning are sometimes left unburied because no one dares to interfere with their bodies, or perhaps in order to prevent them from mixing with the other dead.[256]

[Footnote 252: Prain, 'Angami Nagas,' in _Revue coloniale internationale_, v. 493.]

[Footnote 253: _Cf._ Hertz, _loc. cit._ pp. 122, 132 _sqq._]

[Footnote 254: Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 89.]

[Footnote 255: Macdonald, _Africana_, i. 68.]

[Footnote 256: _Supra_, ii. 238 _sq._]

It should finally be noticed that the duties to the departed become less stringent as time goes on. As Dr. Hertz has recently shown, the fear of the dead is greatest as long as the process of decomposition lasts and till the second funeral is performed, and this ceremony brings the period of mourning to an end.[257] Moreover, the dead are gradually less and less thought of, they appear less frequently in dreams and visions, the affection for them fades away, and, being forgotten, they are no longer feared. The Chinese say that ghosts are much more {550} liable to appear very shortly after death, than at any other period.[258] The natives of Australia are only afraid of the spirits of men who have lately died.[259] In the course of time savages also become more willing to speak of their dead.[260] But whilst the large bulk of disembodied souls sooner or later lose their individuality and dwindle into insignificance or sink into the limbo of All Souls, it may be that some of them escape this fate, and, instead of being ignored, are raised to the rank of gods.

[Footnote 257: Hertz, _loc. cit._ _passim_.]

[Footnote 258: Dennys, _op. cit._ p. 76.]

[Footnote 259: Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 44, 87. Lumholtz, _Among Cannibals_, p. 279 (Northern Queensland aborigines).]

[Footnote 260: Tout, 'Ethnology of the Stlatlumh of British Columbia,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxxv. 138. Bourke, 'Medicine-Men of the Apache,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ ix. 462. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 431 _sqq._]

* * * * *

Progress in intellectual culture has a tendency to affect the notions of death. The change involved in it appears greater. The soul, if still thought to survive the death of the body, is more distinctly separated from it; it is rid of all sensuous desires, as also of all earthly interests. Duties to the dead which arose from the old ideas may still be maintained, but their meaning is changed.

Thus the funeral sacrifice may be continued as a mark of respect or affection. In Melanesia, for instance, at the death-meals which follow upon funerals or begin before them, and which still form one of the principal institutions of the natives, a piece of food is put aside for the dead. "It is readily denied now," says Dr. Codrington, "that the dead . . . are thought to come and eat the food, which they say is given as a friendly remembrance only, and in the way of associating together those whom death has separated."[261] In many cases the offerings made to the dead have become alms given to the poor, just as has been the case with sacrifices offered to gods;[262] and this almsgiving is undoubtedly looked upon as a duty to the dead. Among the Omahas goods are collected from the kindred of the dead between the death and the funeral, and when the body has been deposited in the grave they {551} are brought forth and equally divided among the poor who are assembled on the spot.[263] At a Hindu funeral in Sindh, on the road to the burning place, the relatives of the dead throw dry dates into the air over the corpse; these are considered as a kind of alms and are left to the poor.[264] Among some peoples of Malabar, at the _çráddha_, or yearly anniversary of a death, not less than three Brahmins are well fed and presented with money and cloth;[265] and according to Brahmanism the _çráddha_ is "a debt which is transferred from one generation to another, and on the payment of which depends the happiness of the dead in the next life."[266] Among Muhammedans alms, generally consisting of food, are distributed in connection with a death in order to confer merits upon the deceased.[267] Thus in Morocco bread or dried fruits are given to the poor who are assembled at the grave-side on the day of the funeral, as also on the third and sometimes on the fortieth day after it, on the tenth day of Mu[h.]arram, and in many parts of the country on other feast-days as well, when the graves are visited by relatives of the dead. These alms are obviously survivals of offerings to the dead themselves. While residing among the Bedouins of Dukkâla, I was told that if the funeral meal were omitted the dead man's mouth would be filled with earth; and it is a common custom among the Moors that, if a dead person appears in a dream complaining of hunger or thirst, food or drink is at once given to some poor people. Among the Christians, in former days, alms were distributed in the church when, soon after a death or on the anniversary of a death, the sacrifice of the mass was offered; and alms were also given at funerals and at graves, in the hope that their merit might be of advantage to the deceased.[268] At Mykonos, in the Cyclades, on some fixed days after the {552} burial a dish consisting of boiled wheat adorned with sugar plums or other delicacy is put on the tomb, and finally distributed to the poor at the church door;[269] and in some parts of Russia the people still believe that if the usual alms are not given at a funeral the dead man's soul will reveal itself to his relatives in the form of a moth flying about the flame of a candle.[270] The supposed conferring of merits upon the dead and the prayers on their behalf, so common both in Christianity and Muhammedanism, are the last remains of a series of customs by means of which the living have endeavoured to benefit their departed friends.

[Footnote 261: Codrington, _Melanesians_, p. 271 _sq._ _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 128.]

[Footnote 262: _Supra_, i. 565 _sqq._]

[Footnote 263: La Flesche, in _Jour. American Folk-Lore_, ii. 8 _sqq._]

[Footnote 264: Burton, _Sindh_, p. 350.]

[Footnote 265: Fawcett, 'Notes on some of the People of Malabar,' in the Madras Government Museum's _Bulletin_, iii. 71.]

[Footnote 266: Barth, _Religions of India_, p. 52.]

[Footnote 267: Garnett, _Women of Turkey_, ii. 496. Lane, _Modern Egyptians_, p. 530. Certeux and Carnoy, _L'Algérie traditionelle_, p. 220.]

[Footnote 268: Uhlhorn, _Die christliche Liebesthätigkeit_, i. 281.]

[Footnote 269: Bent, _Cyclades_, p. 221 _sq._]

[Footnote 270: Ralston, _op. cit._ p. 117.]

But even when the dead are no longer believed to be in need of human care, nay, though death be thought to put an end to existence, there are still duties, if not to the dead, at all events to those who were once alive. A person may be wronged by an act which he can no longer feel. There are rights that are in force not only during his lifetime but after his death. A given promise is not buried with him to whom it was made. A dead man's will is binding. His memory is protected against calumny. These rights have the same foundation as all other rights: the feelings of the person himself and the claims of others that his feelings shall be respected. We have wishes with regard to the future when we live no more. We take an interest in persons and things that survive us. We desire to leave behind a spotless name. And the sympathy felt for us by our fellow men will last when we ourselves are gone.

CHAPTER XLVI

CANNIBALISM

BEFORE we take leave of the dead we have still to consider the practice of eating them.

Habitual cannibalism, permitted or in some cases enjoined by custom, has been met with in a large number of savage tribes and, as a religious or magical rite, among several peoples of culture. It is, or has been, particularly prevalent in the South Sea Islands, Australia, Central Africa, and South and Central America. But it has also been found among various North American Indians, in certain tribes of the Malay Archipelago, and among a few peoples on the Asiatic continent. And it is proved to have occurred in many parts of Europe.[1]

[Footnote 1: For the prevalence and extenson of cannibalism**, see Andree, _Die Anthropophagie_, p. 1 _sqq._; Bergemann, _Die Verbreitung der Anthropophagie_, p. 5 _sqq._; Steinmetz, _Endokannibalismus_, p. 2 _sqq._; Schneider, _Die Naturvölker_, i. 121 _sqq._; Letourneau, _L'évolution de la morale_, p. 82 _sqq._; Ritson, _Abstinence from Animal Food_, p. 125 _sqq._; Hartland, _Legend of Perseus_, ii. 279 _sqq._; Schaafhausen, 'Die Menschenfresserei und das Menschenopfer,' in _Archiv f. Anthropologie_, iv. 248 _sqq._; Henkenius, 'Verbreitung der Anthropophagie,' in _Deutsche Rundschau f. Geographie u. Statistik_, xv. 348 _sqq._; de Nadaillac, 'L'Anthropophagie et les sacrifices humains,' in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, lxvi. 406 _sqq._; _Idem_, in _Bulletins de la Soc. d'Anthrop. de Paris_, 1888, p. 27 _sqq._; Dorman, _Origin of Primitive Superstitions_, p. 145 _sqq._ (American aborigines); Koch, 'Die Anthropophagie der südamerikanischen Indianer,' in _Internationales Archiv f. Ethnographie_, xii. 84 _sqq._; Preuss, _Die Begräbnisarten der Amerikaner und Nordostasiaten_, p. 217 _sqq._; Vos, 'Die Verbreitung der Anthropophagie auf dem asiatischen Festlande,' in _Intern. Archiv f. Ethnogr._ iii. 69 _sqq._; de Groot, _Religious System of China_, (vol. iv. book) ii. 363 _sqq._; Hübbe-Schleiden, _Ethiopien_, p. 209 _sqq._; Matiegka, 'Anthropophagie in der prähistorischen Ansiedlung bei Knovize und in der prähistorischen Zeit überhaupt,' in _Mittheil. d. Anthrop. Gesellsch. in Wien_, xxvi. 129 _sqq._; Wood-Martin, _Traces of the Elder Faiths of Ireland_, ii. 286 _sqq._]

{554} Sometimes the whole body is eaten, with the exception of the bones, sometimes only a part of it, as the liver or the heart. Frequently the victim is an enemy or a member of a foreign tribe, but he may also be a relative or fellow tribesman. Among various savages exo- and endo-anthropophagy prevail simultaneously; but many cannibals restrict themselves to eating strangers, slain enemies, or captives taken in war, whereas others eat their own people in preference to strangers, or are exclusively endo-anthropophagous. Thus the Birhors of the Central Provinces of India are said to eat their aged relatives, but to abhor any other form of cannibalism;[2] and in certain Australian tribes it is not the dead bodies of slain enemies that are eaten, but the bodies of friends, the former being left where they fell.[3] Sometimes people feed on the corpses of such kinsmen as have happened to die, sometimes they kill and eat their old folks, sometimes parents eat their children, sometimes criminals are eaten by the other members of their own community. The Australian Dieyerie have a fixed order in which they partake of their dead relatives:--"The mother eats of her children. The children eat of their mother. Brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law eat of each other. Uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, grandchildren, grandfathers, and grandmothers eat of each other. But the father does not eat of his offspring, or the offspring of the sire."[4] Among some peoples cannibalism is an exclusively masculine custom, the women being forbidden to eat human flesh, except perhaps in quite exceptional circumstances.[5]

[Footnote 2: Dalton, _Ethnology of Bengal_, p. 220 _sq._]

[Footnote 3: Palmer, 'Some Australian Tribes,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xiii. 283; Fraser, _Aborigines of New South Wales_, p. 56; Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, p. 753 (Queensland aborigines). Dawson, _Australian Aborigines_, p. 67 (tribes of Western Victoria).]

[Footnote 4: Gason, 'Dieyerie Tribe,' in Woods, _Native Tribes of South Australia_, p. 274.]

[Footnote 5: Coquilhat, _Sur le Haut-Congo_, p. 274 (Bangala). Torday and Joyce, 'Ethnography of the Ba-Mbala,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxxv. 403 _sq._ _Iidem_, 'Ethnography of the Ba-Huana,' _ibid._ xxxvi. 279. Reade, _Savage Africa_, p. 158 (West Equatorial Africans). Thomson, _Story of New Zealand_, i. 145; Best, 'Art of War, as conducted by the Maori,' in _Jour. Polynesian Soc._ xi. 71 (some of the Maoris). von Langsdorf, _op. cit._ i. 134 (Nukahivans). Erskine, _Cruise among the Islands of Western Pacific_, p. 260 (Fijians). Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 548. With reference to the natives of Australia Mr. Curr says (_The Australian Race_, i. 77) that "human flesh seems to have been entirely forbidden to females"; but this certainly does not hold true of all the Australian tribes.]

{555} The practice of cannibalism may be traced to many different sources. **It often springs from scarcity or lack of animal food.[6] In the South Sea Islands, according to Ellis, "the cravings of nature, and the pangs of famine, often led to this unnatural crime."[7] The Nukahivans, who were in the habit of eating their enemies slain in battle, also killed and ate their wives and children in times of scarcity, but not unless forced to it by the utmost necessity.[8] Hunger has been represented as the motive for cannibalism in some North and West Australian tribes, parents sometimes consuming even their own children when food is scarce.[9] The Indians north of Lake Superior often resorted to the eating of human flesh when hard pressed by their enemies or during a famine.[10] Among the Hudson Bay Eskimo "instances are reported where, in times of great scarcity, families have been driven to cannibalism after eating their dogs and the clothing and other articles made of skins."[11]

[Footnote 6: Bergemann, _op. cit._ p. 48. de Nadaillac, in _Bull. Soc. d'Anthr._ 1888, p. 27 _sqq._ _Idem_, in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, lxvi. 428 _sq._ Steinmetz, _Endokannibalismus_, p. 25 _sqq._ Lippert, _Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit_, ii. 281 _sqq._ Henkenius, _loc. cit._ p. 348 _sq._ Letourneau, _L'évolution de la Morale_, p. 97. Matiegka, _loc. cit._ p. 136. Hübbe-Schleiden, _Ethiopien_, p. 216 _sq._ Rochas, _La Nouvelle Calédonie_, p. 304 _sq._]

[Footnote 7: Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, i. 359.]

[Footnote 8: von Langsdorf, _op. cit._ i. 144.]

[Footnote 9: Lumholtz, _Among Cannibals_, p. 134. Nisbet, _A Colonial Tramp_, ii. 143. Oldfield, 'Aborigines of Australia,' in _Trans. Ethn. Soc._ N.S. iii. 285. In hard summers the new-born babies were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide (Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 749).]

[Footnote 10: Warren, in Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes of the United States_, ii. 146.]

[Footnote 11: Turner, 'Ethnology of the Ungava District,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xi. 187.]

But whilst among some peoples starvation is the only inducement to cannibalism, there are others who can plead no such motive for their anthropophagous habits. The Fijians, until lately some of the greatest man-eaters on earth, inhabit a country where food of every kind abounds.[12] The Brazilian cannibals generally have a great {556} plenty of game or fish.[13] In Africa cannibalism prevails in many countries which are well supplied with food.[14] Thus the Bangala of the Upper Congo have been known to make frequent warlike expeditions against adjoining tribes seemingly for the sole object of obtaining human flesh to eat, although their land is well provided with a variety of vegetable food and domestic animals, to say nothing of the incredible abundance of fish in its lakes and rivers.[15] Of the cave-cannibals in the Trans-Gariep Country, in South Africa, a traveller remarks with some surprise:--"They were inhabiting a fine agricultural tract of country, which also abounded in game. Notwithstanding this, they were not contented with hunting and feeding upon their enemies, but preyed much upon each other also, for many of their captures were made from amongst the people of their own tribe."[16] Far from being an article of food resorted to in emergency only, human flesh is not seldom sought for as a delicacy.[17] The highest praise which the Fijians could bestow on a dainty was to say that it was "tender as a dead man."[18] In various other islands of the South Seas human flesh is spoken of as a delicious food, far superior to pork.[19] The {557} Australian Kurnai said that it tasted better than beef.[20] In some tribes in Australia a plump child is considered "a sweet mouthful, and, in the absence of the mother, clubs in the hands of a few wilful men will soon lay it low."[21] Of certain natives of Northern Queensland we are told that the greatest incentive to taking life is their appetite for human flesh, as they know no greater luxury than the flesh of a black man.[22]

[Footnote 12: Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_, p. 182. Erskine. _op. cit._ p. 262.]

[Footnote 13: von Martius, _Beiträge zur Ethnographie Amerika's_, i. 538. Koch, _loc. cit._ p. 87. de Nadaillac, in _Bull. Soc. d'Anthr._ 1888, p. 30 _sq._]

[Footnote 14: Johnston, 'Ethics of Cannibalism,' in _Fortnightly Review_, N.S. xlv. 20 _sqq._ Hübbe-Schleiden, _Ethiopien_, p. 212. de Nadaillac, in _Bull. Soc. d'Anthr._ 1888, p. 32 _sq._]

[Footnote 15: Coquilhat, _op. cit._ pp. 271, 273. Johnston, in _Fortnightly Review_, N.S. xlv. 20.]

[Footnote 16: Layland, quoted by Burton, _Two Trips to Gorilla Land_, i. 216.]

[Footnote 17: Bergemann, _op. cit._ p. 49 _sq._ von Langsdorf, _op. cit._ i. 141. Hübbe-Schleiden, _Ethiopien_, p. 218. Johnston, in _Fortnightly Review_, N.S. xlv. 20 _sqq._ (various African peoples). Kingsley, _Travels in West Africa_, p. 330 (Fans). Reade, _op. cit._ p. 158 (West Equatorial Africans). Coquilhat, _op. cit._ p. 271 (Bangala). Torday and Joyce, 'Ba-Mbala,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxxv. 404. _Iidem_, 'Ba-Huana,' _ibid._ xxxvi. 279.]

[Footnote 18: Wilkes, _U. S. Exploring Expedition_, iii. 101. _Cf._ Williams and Calvert, _op. cit._ pp. 175, 178, 195.]

[Footnote 19: Romilly, _Western Pacific_, p. 59 (New Irelanders). _Idem_, _From my Verandah in New Guinea_, p. 65. Brenchley, _Cruise of H.M.S. Curaçoa_, p. 209; Turner, _Samoa_, p. 313 (natives of Tana, in the New Hebrides). _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 344 (New Caledonians); Hale, _U. S. Exploring Expedition. Vol. VI. Ethnography and Philology_, p. 39 (Polynesians). The Bataks of Sumatra likewise consider human flesh even better than pork (Junghuhn, _Die Battaländer auf Sumatra_, ii. 160 _sq._). For the high appreciation of its taste see also Marco Polo, _Book concerning the Kingdoms and Marvels of the East_, ii. 179 (hill people in Fokien), 209 (Islanders in the Seas of China); Schaafhausen, _loc. cit._ p. 247 _sq._; Matiegka, _loc. cit._ p. 136, n. 3.]

[Footnote 20: Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 752.]

[Footnote 21: Fraser, _Aborigines of New South Wales_, pp. 3, 57.]

[Footnote 22: Lumholtz, _op. cit._ pp. 101, 271.]

However, bodily appetites, whether hunger or _gourmandise_, are by no means the sole motives for cannibalism. Very frequently it is described as an act of revenge.[23] The Typees of the Marquesas Islands, according to Melville, are cannibals only when they seek to gratify the passion of revenge upon their foes.[24] The cannibalism of the Solomon Islanders seems mainly to have been an expression of the deepest humiliation to which they could make a person subject.[25] The Samoans affirmed that, when in some of their wars a body was occasionally cooked, "it was always some one of the enemy who had been notorious for provocation or cruelty, and that eating a part of his body was considered the climax of hatred and revenge, and was not occasioned by the mere relish for human flesh." To speak of roasting {558} him is the very worst language that can be addressed to a Samoan, and if applied to a chief of importance, he may raise war to avenge the insult.[26] Among the Maoris human flesh was frequently eaten from motives of revenge and hatred, to cast disgrace on the person eaten, and to strike terror. "It was such a disgrace for a New Zealander to have his body eaten, that if crews of Englishmen and New Zealanders, all friends, were dying of starvation in separate ships, the English might resort to cannibalism, but the New Zealanders never would."[27] Even in Fiji, where cannibalism was largely indulged in for the mere pleasure of eating human flesh as food, revenge is said to have been the chief motive for it.[28] Thus, "in any transaction where the national honour had to be avenged, it was incumbent upon the king and principal chiefs--in fact, a duty they owed to their exalted station--to avenge the insult offered to the country by eating the perpetrators of it."[29]

[Footnote 23: Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, i. 310 (Tahitians). von Langsdorf, _op. cit._ i. 149 (Nukahivans). Forster, _Voyage round the World_, ii. 315 (natives of Tana and generally). Powell, _Wanderings in a Wild Country_, p. 248 (natives of New Britain and New Ireland). Howitt, _Natives of South-East Australia_, pp. 247, 751. Marsden, _History of Sumatra_, p. 391; Buning, in _Glimpses of the Eastern Archipelago_, p. 74 _sq._; Junghuhn. _op. cit._ ii. 156, 160 (Bataks). de Groot, _op. cit._ (vol. iv. book) ii. 369 _sqq._ (ancient Chinese). Schneider, _Die Religion der afrikanischen Naturvölker_, p. 208 _sq._ (Negroes). Burton, _Two Trips to Gorilla Land_, i. 216 (natives of Bonny and New Calabar). Müller, _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_, p. 145 _sq._ Carver, _Travels through the Interior Parts of North America_, p. 303 _sq._ (Naudowessies). Keating, _Expedition to the Source of St. Peter's River_, i. 104 (Potawatomis). Koch, _loc. cit._ pp. 87, 89 _sqq._ (South American tribes). von Humboldt, _Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent_, v. 421 (Indians of Guyana). Wied-Neuwied, _Reise nach Brasilien_, ii. 50 (Botocudos and some other Brazilian tribes). Lomonaco, 'Sulle razze indigene del Brasile,' in _Archivio per l'antropologia e la etnologia_, xix. 58 (Tupis). Andree, _op. cit._ p. 102 _sq._ and _passim_.]

[Footnote 24: Melville, _Typee_, p. 181.]

[Footnote 25: Parkinson, _Zur Ethnographie der nordwestlichen Salomo Inseln_, p. 14.]

[Footnote 26: Turner, _Nineteen Years in Polynesia_, p. 194. _Cf._ Pritchard, _Polynesian Reminiscences_, p. 125 _sq._]

[Footnote 27: Thomson, _Story of New Zealand_, i. 141 _sqq._ Yate, _Account of New Zealand_, p. 129. Dieffenbach, _Travels in New Zealand_, ii. 128. Taylor, _Te Ika a Maui_, p. 353. Best, in _Jour. Polynesian Soc._ xi. 71 _sq._]

[Footnote 28: Wilkes, _op. cit._ iii. 101. Williams and Calvert, _op. cit._ p. 178.]

[Footnote 29: Seemann, _Viti_, p. 181.]

The practice of eating criminals, which is quite a common form of cannibalism, seems to be largely due to revenge or indignation.[30] In Lepers' Island, in the New Hebrides, the victims of it were not generally enemies who had been killed in fighting, but "it was a murderer or particularly detested enemy who was eaten, in anger and to treat him ill."[31] Among the Bataks of Sumatra offenders condemned for certain capital crimes, such as atrocious murder, treason, and adultery, were usually eaten by the injured persons and their friends with all the signs of angry passion.[32] But this form of cannibalism may also have another foundation.[33] If for any reason there is a desire to eat human flesh, an unsympathetic being like a criminal is apt to be chosen as a victim. {559} It is said that some of the Line Islanders in the South Seas began their cannibalism by eating thieves and slaves.[34] In Melanesia, where human sacrifices were combined with the eating of bits of the victim, "advantage was taken of a crime, or imputed crime, to take a life and offer the man to some _tindalo_."[35]

[Footnote 30: _Cf._ Matiegka, _loc. cit._ p. 137.]

[Footnote 31: Codrington, _Melanesians_, p. 344.]

[Footnote 32: Marsden, _op. cit._ p. 391. Junghuhn, _op. cit._ ii. 156 _sq._]

[Footnote 33: See Steinmetz, _op. cit._ p. 55 _sq._]

[Footnote 34: Tutuila, 'Line Islanders,' in _Jour. Polynesian Soc._ i. 270.]

[Footnote 35: Codrington, _op. cit._ p. 135.]

It has been questioned whether cannibalism can be a direct expression of hatred;[36] but for no good reason. To eat a person is, according to primitive ideas, to annihilate him as an individual,[37] and we can readily imagine the triumphant feelings of a savage who has his enemy between his jaws. The Fijian eats in revenge even the vermin which bite him, and when a thorn pricks him he picks it out of his flesh and eats it.[38] The Cochin-Chinese express their deepest hatred of a person by saying, "I wish I could eat his liver or his flesh."[39] Other people want to "drink the blood" of their enemies.

[Footnote 36: Steinmetz, _op. cit._ p. 33.]

[Footnote 37: Dieffenbach, _op. cit._ ii. 118 (Maoris). Johnston, in _Fortnightly Review_, N. S. xlv. 27 (Negroes of the Niger Delta). Koch, _loc. cit._ pp. 87, 109. Lippert, _Der Seelencult_, p. 69. _Idem_, _Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit_, ii. 282 _sq._]

[Footnote 38: Pritchard, _op. cit._ p. 371.]

[Footnote 39: von Langsdorf, _op. cit._ i. 148.]

The idea that a person is annihilated or loses his individuality by being eaten has led to cannibalism not only in revenge but as an act of protection, as a method of making a dangerous individual harmless after death.[40] Among the Botocudos warriors devoured the bodies of their fallen enemies in the belief that they would thus be safe from the revengeful hatred of the dead.[41] In Ashantee "several of the hearts of the enemy are cut out by the fetish men who follow the army, and the blood and small pieces being mixed (with much ceremony and incantation) with various consecrated herbs, all those who have never killed an enemy before eat a portion, for it is believed that if they did not, their vigour and courage would be secretly wasted by the haunting spirit of the {560} deceased."[42] In Greenland "a slain man is said to have the power to avenge himself upon the murderer by rushing into him, which can only be prevented by eating a piece of his liver."[43] Many cannibals are in the habit of consuming that part of a slain enemy which is supposed to contain his soul or courage or strength, and one reason for this practice may be the wish to render him incapable of doing further harm. Queensland natives eat the kidneys of the persons whom they have killed, believing that "the kidneys are the centre of life."[44] Among the Maoris a chief was often satisfied with the left eye of his enemy, which they considered to be the seat of the soul; or they drank the blood from a corresponding belief;[45] or in the case of a blood feud the heart of the enemy, representing the vital essence of him, was eaten "to fix or make firm the victory and the courage of the victor."[46] Other peoples likewise eat the hearts or suck the brains of their foes.

[Footnote 40: _Cf._ Lippert, _Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit_, ii. 282; Koch, _loc. cit._ pp. 87, 109.]

[Footnote 41: Featherman, _Social History of Mankind_, 'Chiapo- and Guarano-Maranonians,' p. 355.]

[Footnote 42: Bowdich, _Mission to Ashantee_, p. 300.]

[Footnote 43: Rink, _Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo_, p. 45.]

[Footnote 44: Lumholtz, _op. cit._ p. 272.]

[Footnote 45: Dieffenbach, _op. cit._ ii. 128 _sq._]

[Footnote 46: Best, in _Jour. Polynesian Soc._ xii. 83, 147.]

Moreover, by eating the supposed seat of a certain quality in his enemy the cannibal thinks not only that he deprives his victim of that quality, but also that he incorporates it with his own system.[47] In many cases this is the chief or the only reason for the practice of cannibalism. The Shoshone Indians supposed that they became animated by the heroic spirit of a fallen foe if they partook of his flesh.[48] Among the Hurons, if an enemy had shown courage, his heart, roasted and cut into small pieces, {561} was given to the young men and boys to eat.[49] The E[(w]e-speaking peoples of the Slave Coast used to eat the hearts of foes remarkable for sagacity, holding that the heart is the seat of the intellect as well as of courage.[50] Among the Kimbunda of South-Western Africa, when a new king succeeds to the throne, a brave prisoner of war is killed in order that the king and nobles may eat his flesh, and so acquire his strength and courage.[51] The idea of transference very largely underlies Australian cannibalism.[52] In some tribes enemies are consumed with a view to acquiring some part of their qualities and courage.[53] The Dieyerie devour the fatty portions of their foes because they think it will impart strength to them.[54] And similar motives are often given for the practice of eating relatives or friends. When a man is killed in one of the ceremonial fights in the tribes about Maryborough, in Queensland, his friends skin and eat him in the hope that his virtues as a warrior may go into those who partake of him.[55] Among the natives of the River Darling, in New South Wales, a piece of flesh is cut from the dead body and taken to the camp, and after being sun-dried is cut up into small pieces, which are distributed among the relatives and friends of the deceased. Some of them use the piece in making a charm, or throw it into the river to bring a flood and fish, but others suck it to get strength and courage.[56] In certain Central Australian tribes, when a party starts on an avenging expedition, every man of it drinks some blood and also has some spurted over his body, so as to make him lithe and active; the elder men {562} indicate from whom the blood is to be drawn, and the persons thus selected must not decline.[57] In certain South Australian tribes cannibalism is only practised by old men and women, who eat a baby in order to get the youngster's strength.[58] Among other natives of the same continent, as we have noticed above, a mother used to kill and eat her first child, as this was believed to strengthen her for later births.[59] And in various Australian tribes it is, or has been, the custom when a child is weak or sickly to kill its infant brother or sister and feed it with the flesh to make it strong.[60] Many of the Brazilian Indians are in the habit of burning the bones of their departed relatives, and mix the ashes with a drink of which they partake for the purpose of absorbing their spirits or virtues.[61] Dr. Couto de Magalhães was informed that the savage Chavantes "eat their children who die, in the hope of gathering again to their body the soul of the child."[62]

[Footnote 47: Blumentritt, 'Der Ahnencultus der Malaien des Philippinen-Archipels,' in _Mittheil. d. kais. u. könig. Geograph. Gesellsch. in Wien_, xxv. 154 (Italones). Lewin, _Wild Races of South-Eastern India_, p. 269 (Kukis). de Groot, _op. cit._ (vol. iv. book) ii. 373 _sqq._ (ancient Chinese). Schneider, _Die Religion der afrikanischen Naturvölker_, p. 209 _sq._ (Negroes). Dorman, _op. cit._ p. 145 _sq._ (North American Indians). Keating, _op. cit._ i. 104 (Potawatomis). Koch, _loc. cit._ pp. 87, 89 _sqq._, 109 (South American Indians). Andree, _op. cit._ p. 101 _sq._ and _passim_. Lippert, _Der Seelencult_, p. 70 _sqq._ _Idem_, _Kulturgeschichte_, ii. 282. Trumbull, _Blood Covenant_, p. 128 _sqq._ Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 357 _sqq._ Gomme, _Ethnology in Folklore_, p. 151 _sqq._ Crawley, _Mystic Rose_, p. 101 _sqq._]

[Footnote 48: Featherman, _op. cit._ 'Aoneo-Maranonians,' p. 206.]

[Footnote 49: Parkman, _Jesuits in North America_, p. xxxix.]

[Footnote 50: Ellis, _E[(w]e-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast_, p. 100.]

[Footnote 51: Magyar, _Reisen in Süd-Afrika_, p. 273.]

[Footnote 52: Fraser, _Aborigines of New South Wales_, pp. 56, 81. Brough Smyth, _Aborigines of Victoria_, i. p. xxxviii. Howitt, 'Australian Medicine Men,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xvi. 30. Langloh Parker, _Euahlayi Tribe_, p. 38. Gason, 'Dieyerie Tribe,' in Curr, _op. cit._ ii. 52.]

[Footnote 53: Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, p. 752.]

[Footnote 54: Gason, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxiv. 172.]

[Footnote 55: Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 753. McDonald,'Mode of Preparing the Dead among the Natives of the Upper Mary River, Queensland,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ ii. 179.]

[Footnote 56: Bonney, 'Aborigines of the River Darling,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xiii. 135.]

[Footnote 57: Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 461.]

[Footnote 58: Crauford, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxiv. 182.]

[Footnote 59: _Supra_, i. 458.]

[Footnote 60: Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, p. 749 _sq._ (all the tribes of the Wotjo nation, and the Tatathi and other tribes on the Murray River frontage). Stanbridge, 'Tribes in the Central Part of Victoria,' in _Trans. Ethn. Soc. London_, N.S. i. 289. Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, pp. 52, 475 (Luritcha tribe).]

[Footnote 61: Wallace, _Travels on the Amazon_, p. 498 (Tariánas, Tucános, and some other tribes of the Uaupés). Coudreau, _La France équinoxiale_, ii. 173 (Cobbéos, of the Uaupés). Monteiro, quoted by von Spix and von Martius, _Reise in Brasilien_, iii. 1207, n. * (Jumánas). Koch, _loc. cit._ p. 83 _sq._ Dorman, _op. cit._ p. 151.]

[Footnote 62: Couto de Magalhães, _Trabalho preparatorio para aproveitamento do selvagem e do solo por elle occupado no Brazil--O selvagem_, p. 132. _Cf._ de Castelnau, _Expédition dans les parties centrales de l'Amérique du Sud_, iv. 382 (Camacas).]

The belief in the principle of transference has also led to cannibalism in connection with human sacrifice and to the eating of man-gods. At Florida, in the Solomon Islands, human flesh was eaten in sacrifice only.[63] In Hawaii, "après le sacrifice, le peuple, qui d'ailleurs ne fut jamais anthropophage, pratiquait une sorte de communion en mangeant certaines parties de la victime."[64] In West Equatorial Africa, according to Mr. Winwood Reade, there are two kinds of cannibalism--the one is simply an {563} act of _gourmandise_, the other is sacrificial and is performed by the priests, whose office it is to eat a portion of the victims, whether men, goats, or fowls.[65] And this sacrificial cannibalism is not restricted to the priests. In British Nigeria "no great human sacrifice offered for the purpose of appeasing the gods and averting sickness or misfortune is considered to be complete unless either the priests or the people eat the bodies of the victims";[66] and among the Aro people in Southern Nigeria the human victims offered to the god were eaten by all the people, the flesh being distributed throughout their country.[67] The inhabitants of the province of Caranque, in ancient Peru, likewise consumed the flesh of those whom they sacrificed to their gods.[68] The Aztecs ate parts of the human bodies whose blood had been poured out on the altar of sacrifice,[69] and so did the Mayas.[70] In Nicaragua the high-priests received the heart, the king the feet and hands, he who captured the victim took the thighs, the entrails were given to the trumpeters, and the rest was divided among the people.[71] In ancient India it was a prevalent opinion that he who offered a human victim in sacrifice should partake of its flesh; though, in opposition to this view, it was also said that a man cannot be allowed, much less required, to eat human flesh.[72] The sacrificial form of cannibalism obviously springs from the idea that a victim offered to a supernatural being participates in his sanctity[73] and from the wish of the worshipper to transfer to himself something of its benign virtue. So also the divine qualities of a man-god are supposed to be assimilated by the person {564} who eats his flesh or drinks his blood.[74] This was the idea of the early Christians concerning the Eucharist. In the holy food they assumed a real bestowal of heavenly gifts, a bodily self-communication of Christ, a miraculous implanting of divine life. The partaking of the consecrated elements had no special relation to the forgiveness of sins; but it strengthened faith and knowledge, and, especially, it was the guarantee of eternal life, because the body of Christ was eternal. The holy food was described as the "medicine of immortality."[75]

[Footnote 63: Codrington, _op. cit._ p. 343. See also Geiseler, _Die Oster-Insel_, p. 30 _sq._ (Easter Islanders).]

[Footnote 64: Remy, _Ka Mooolelo Hawaii_, p. xl.]

[Footnote 65: Reade, _op. cit._ p. 158. See also Schneider, _Die Religion der afrikanischen Naturvölker_, p. 209 _sq._]

[Footnote 66: Mockler-Ferryman, _British Nigeria_, p. 261.]

[Footnote 67: Partridge, _Cross River Natives_, p. 59.]

[Footnote 68: Ranking, _Researches on the Conquest of Peru_, p. 89.]

[Footnote 69: Prescott, _History of the Conquest of Mexico_, p. 41. Réville, _Hibbert Lectures on the Religions of Mexico and Peru_, p. 89. Bancroft, _Native Races of the Pacific States_, ii. 176; iii. 443 _sq._]

[Footnote 70: Bancroft, _op. cit._ ii. 725.]

[Footnote 71: _Ibid._ ii. 725.]

[Footnote 72: Weber, 'Ueber Menschenopfer bei den Indern der vedischen Zeit,' in _Indische Streifen_, i. 72 _sq._]

[Footnote 73: See _supra_, i. 445 _sq._]

[Footnote 74: See Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 352, 353. 366.]

[Footnote 75: Harnack, _History of Dogma_, i. 211; ii. 144 _sqq._; iv. 286, 291, 294, 296, 297, 299 _sq._]

In various other instances human flesh or blood is supposed to have a supernatural or medicinal effect upon him who partakes of it. The Banks Islanders in Melanesia believe that a man or woman may obtain a power like that of Vampires by stealing and eating a morsel of a corpse; the ghost of the dead man would then "join in a close friendship with the person who had eaten, and would gratify him by afflicting any one against whom his ghostly power might be directed."[76] Australian sorcerers are said to acquire their magic influence by eating human flesh.[77] The Egyptian natives who accompanied Baker on one of his expeditions imagined that the rite of consuming an enemy's liver would give a fatal direction to a random bullet.[78] Among the aborigines of Tasmania a man's blood was often administered as a healing draught.[79] In China the heart, the liver, the gall, and the blood of executed criminals are used for life-strengthening purposes;[80] thus at Peking, when a person has been executed by the sword, certain large pith balls are steeped in the blood and, under the name of "blood-bread," sold as a medicine for consumption.[81] Tertullian speaks of those "who at the gladiatorial shows, for the cure of epilepsy, {565} quaff with greedy thirst the blood of criminals slain in the arena, as it flows fresh from the wound."[82] So also in Christian Europe the blood of criminals has been drunk as a remedy against epilepsy, fever, and other diseases.[83] In these cases the ascription of a healing effect to the blood of the dead may perhaps have been derived from a belief in the transference of some quality which they possessed in their lifetime; the blood or life of a sound and strong individual might impart health to the sickly. But the mystery of death would also give to the corpse a miraculous power of its own, especially when combined with the horror or awe inspired by an executed felon.

[Footnote 76: Codrington, _op. cit._ p. 221 _sq._]

[Footnote 77: Eyre, _Expeditions of Discovery into Central Australia_, ii. 255.]

[Footnote 78: Baker, _Ismailïa_, p. 393.]

[Footnote 79: Bonwick, _Daily Life and Origin of the Tasmanians_, p. 89.]

[Footnote 80: de Groot, _op. cit._ (vol. iv. book) ii. 377.]

[Footnote 81: Rennie, quoted by Yule, in his translation of Marco Polo, i. 275, n. 7.]

[Footnote 82: Tertullian, _Apologeticus_, 9 (Migne, _Patrologiæ cursus_, i. 321 _sq._).]

[Footnote 83: Strack, _Der Blutaberglaube in der Menschheit_, p. 27 _sqq._ Wuttke, _Der deutsche Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart_, § 189 _sqq._, p. 137 _sq._ Jahn, 'Ueber den Zauber mit Menschenblut,' in _Verhandl. d. Berliner Gesellsch. f. Anthrop._ 1888, p. 134 _sqq._ Havelock Ellis, _The Criminal_, p. 284. Peacock, 'Executed Criminals and Folk-Medicine,' in _Folk-Lore_, vii. 270 _sq._]

In other instances, again, the belief in the wonderful effects of cannibal practices may have originated in the notion that, if a person or the essential part of him is eaten, he ceases to exist even as a spirit, or at all events loses his power of doing mischief. Among the Indians of British Guiana, when a man is pointed out as the secret murderer of a relative who has died, the avenger will shoot him through the back; and if he happens to fall dead to the ground, his corpse is dragged aside and buried in a shallow grave. The third night the avenger goes to the grave and presses a pointed stick through the corpse; and if on withdrawing the stick he finds blood on the end of it, he tastes the blood in order to ward off any evil effects that might follow from the murder, returning home appeased and apparently at ease. But if it happens that the wounded individual is able to escape, he charges his relatives to bury him after his death in some place where he cannot be found. This is to punish the murderer for his deed, "inasmuch as the belief prevails that if he taste not the blood he must perish by madness."[84] In Prussia it was a popular superstition that {566} if a murderer cut off, roasted, and ate a piece of his victim's body, he would never after think of his deed.[85] But by eating a part of the corpse a homicide may also protect himself against the vengeance of the survivors, presumably because he has now absorbed their relative into his own system.[86] The natives of New Britain eat their enemies and fix the leg and arm bones of the victims at the butt end of their spears, believing that this not only gives them the strength of the man whose bones they carry but also makes them invulnerable by his relatives.[87] The Botocudos thought that by devouring their fallen enemies they both protected themselves from the hatred of the dead and at the same time prevented the arrows of the hostile tribe from hitting them.[88] In Greenland the relatives of a murdered person, when highly enraged, will cut to pieces the body of the murderer and devour part of the heart or liver, "thinking thereby to disarm his relatives of all courage to attack them."[89] In the South of Italy there is a popular belief that a murderer will not be able to escape unless he taste or bedaub himself with his victim's blood.[90] Sometimes, we are told, cannibalism is even supposed to have a positively injurious effect upon the victim's relatives, in accordance, as it seems, with the principle of sympathetic magic. Among the Chukchi, in the case of revenge for blood, the slayers eat a little bit of the enemy's heart or liver, supposing that they in this way cause the hearts of his kinsfolk to sicken.[91]

[Footnote 84: Bernau, _Missionary Labours in British Guiana_, p. 57 _sq._]

[Footnote 85: von Tettau and Temme, _Die Volkssagen Ostpreussens_, p. 267.]

[Footnote 86: _Cf._ Hartland, _op. cit._ ii. 245 _sq._]

[Footnote 87: Powell, _Wanderings in a Wild Country_, p. 92.]

[Footnote 88: Castelnau, _Expédition dans les parties centrales de l'Amérique du Sud_, iv. 382.]

[Footnote 89: Cranz, _History of Greenland_, i. 178.]

[Footnote 90: Pasquarelli, quoted by Hartland, _op. cit._ ii. 246.]

[Footnote 91: Ratzel, _History of Mankind_, ii. 212.]

Human flesh or blood is not only believed to impart certain qualities or beneficial magic energy to him who partakes of it, but also serves as a means of transferring conditional curses from one person to another. This I take to be the explanation of cannibalism as a covenant rite; in a previous chapter I have tried to show that the {567} main principle underlying the blood-covenant is the idea that the transference of blood conveys to the person who drinks it, or is inoculated with it, a conditional curse which will injure or destroy him should he break his promise.[92] The drinking of human blood, or of wine mixed with such blood, has been a form of covenant among various ancient and mediæval peoples, as well as among certain savages.[93] In some South Slavonic districts compacts between different clans are even now made by their representatives sucking blood from each other's right hands and swearing fidelity till the grave.[94] In certain parts of Africa, again, the partaking of human flesh, generally prepared in a kind of paste mixed with condiments and kept in a quaintly-carved wooden box and eaten with round spoons of human bone, constitutes a bond of union between strangers who are suspicious of one another or between former enemies, or accompanies the making of a solemn declaration or the taking of an oath.[95] Among the Bambala, a Bantu tribe in the Kasai, south of the River Congo, cannibalism accompanies the ceremony by which a kind of alliance is established between chiefs of the same region. The most powerful chief will invite the other chiefs of the neighbourhood to a meeting held on his territory, in order to make a compact against bloodshed. "A slave is fattened for the occasion and killed by the host, and the invited chiefs and their followers partake of the flesh. Participation in this banquet is taken as a pledge to prevent murder. Supposing that a chief, after attending an assembly of this kind, kills a slave, every village which took part in the bond has the right to claim compensation, and the murderer is sure to be completely ruined."[96]

[Footnote 92: _Supra_, ii. 208.]

[Footnote 93: Strack, _op. cit._ p. 9 _sqq._ Rühs, _Handbuch der Geschichte des Mittelalters_, p. 323. _Supra_, ii. 207 _sqq._]

[Footnote 94: Krauss, 'Sühnung der Blutrache im Herzögischen,' in _Am Ur-Quell_, N.F. i. 196.]

[Footnote 95: Johnston, in _Fortnightly Review_, N.S. xlv. 28.]

[Footnote 96: Torday and Joyce, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxxv. 404, 409.]

For the practice of eating relatives or friends, finally, some special reasons are given besides those already mentioned.{568} It is represented as a mark of affection or respect for the dead,[97] as an act which benefits not only the person who eats but also him who is eaten. The reason which the Australian Dieyerie assign for their endo-anthropophagy is, that should they not eat their relatives they would be perpetually crying and become a nuisance to the camp.[98] The natives of the Boulia district, Queensland, among whom children that die suddenly are partly eaten by the parents and their blood brothers and sisters, say that "putting them along hole" would make them think too much about their beloved little ones.[99] In the Turrbal tribe in Southern Queensland a man who happened to be killed in one of the ceremonial combats which followed the initiation rites was eaten by those members of the tribe who were present; and the motive stated is that they ate him because "they knew him and were fond of him, and they now knew where he was, and his flesh would not stink."[100] The Bataks of Sumatra declared that they frequently ate their own relatives when aged and infirm, "not so much to gratify their appetite, as to perform a pious ceremony."[101] Among the Samoyedes old and decrepit persons who were no longer able to work let their children kill and eat them in the hope that they thereby might fare better after death.[102] The Indian of Hayti "would think he was wanting to the memory of a relation, if he had not thrown into his drink a small portion of the body of the deceased, after having dried it . . . and reduced it to powder."[103] Among the Botocudos old men who were unable to keep up in the march were at their own request eaten up by their sons so that their {569} enemies should be prevented from digging up and injuring their bodies;[104] whilst mothers not infrequently consumed their dead children out of love.[105] The Mayorunas considered it more desirable for the departed to be eaten by relatives than by worms;[106] and the Cocomas, a tribe of the Marañon and Lower Huallaga, said it was better to be inside a friend than to be swallowed up by the cold earth.[107] It is impossible to decide how far these statements represent original motives for the custom of eating dead relatives. They may be later interpretations of a habit which in the first place sprang from selfishness rather than love.

[Footnote 97: Dawson, _op. cit._ p. 67 (tribes of Western Victoria). McDonald, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ ii. 179 (natives of the Upper Mary River, Queensland). Featherman, _op. cit._ 'Oceano-Melanesians,' p. 243 (Hawaiians). Southey, _History of Brazil_, i. 379 (Tapuyas). Marcgravius de Liebstad, _Historia rerum naturalium Brasiliæ_, viii. 12, p. 282 (ancient Tupis).]

[Footnote 98: Gason, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxiv. 172. _Idem_, in Woods, _op. cit._ p. 274.]

[Footnote 99: Roth, _North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines_, p. 166.]

[Footnote 100: Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 753.]

[Footnote 101: Leyden, 'Languages and Literature of the Indo-Chinese Nations,' in _Asiatick Researches_, x. 202.]

[Footnote 102: Preuss, _op. cit._ p. 218.]

[Footnote 103: Bembo, quoted by von Humboldt, _op. cit._ v. 248.]

[Footnote 104: Voss, in _Verhandl. Berliner Geellsch. Anthr._ 1891, p. 26.]

[Footnote 105: Waitz, _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_, iii. 446.]

[Footnote 106: von Schütz-Holzhausen, _Der Amazonas_, p. 209.]

[Footnote 107: Markham, 'List of the Tribes in the Valley of the Amazon,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxiv. 253.]

The cannibalism of modern savages has often been represented as the survival of an ancient practice which was once universal in the human race.[108] The advocates of this theory, however, have not generally made any serious attempts to prove it. I have in another place put the question how ethnographical facts can give us information regarding the early history of mankind, and my answer was:--We have first to find out the causes of the social phenomena; we may then from the prevalence of the causes infer the prevalence of the phenomena themselves, if the former must be assumed to have operated without being checked by other causes.[109] This seems a very obvious method; but, so far as I know, Dr. Steinmetz is the only one who has strictly applied it to the question of cannibalism. He has arrived at the conclusion that primitive man most probably was in the habit of eating the bodies of his dead kinsmen as also of slain enemies. His argument is briefly as follows:--{570} The chief impulse of primitive man was his desire for food. He fed not only on fruits and vegetables, but on flesh. His taste for animal food was not limited by any sufficient esthetic horror of human corpses. Nor was he kept back from eating them by fear of exposing himself to the revenge of the disembodied soul of his victim, nor by any fantastic sympathy for the dead body. Consequently, he was an habitual cannibal.[110] If I cannot accept Dr. Steinmetz's conclusion it is certainly not because I find fault with his method, but because I consider his chief premise exceedingly doubtful.

[Footnote 108: Andree, _op. cit._ p. 98 _sq._ Lippert, _Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit_, ii. 279. Schurtz, _Speiseverbote_, p. 25. Réville, _Hibbert Lectures on the Religions of Mexico and Peru_, p. 87. Johnston, in _Fortnightly Review_, N.S. xlv. 28. M. Letourneau (_L'évolution de la morale_, p. 76) calls cannibalism "le péché originel de toutes les races humaines."]

[Footnote 109: Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, p. 3 _sq._]

[Footnote 110: Steinmetz, _Endokannibalismus_, p. 34 _sqq._]

It is quite likely that early man preferred cannibalism to death from starvation, and that he occasionally practised it from the same motive as has induced many shipwrecked men even among civilised peoples to have recourse to the bodies of their comrades in order to save their lives. But we are here concerned with habitual cannibalism only. Although I consider it highly probable that man was originally in the main frugivorous, there can be no doubt that he has from very early times fed largely on animal food. We may further take for granted that he has habitually eaten the flesh of whatever animals he could get for which he had a taste and from the eating of which no superstitious or sentimental motive held him back. But that he at first had no aversion to human flesh seems to me a very precarious assumption.

A large number of savage tribes have never been known to be addicted to cannibalism, but are, on the contrary, said to feel the greatest dislike of it. In times of scarcity the Eskimo will eat their clothing sooner than touch human flesh. The Fuegians have been reported to devour their old women in cases of extreme distress;[111] but Mr. Bridges, who has spent most part of his life among them, emphatically affirms that cannibalism is unknown amongst the natives of Cape Horn and that {571} they abhor it.[112] Concerning the natives of South Andaman Mr. Man observes:--"Not a trace could be discovered of the existence of such a practice in their midst, even in far-off times. . . . They express the greatest horror of the custom, and indignantly deny that it ever held a place among their institutions."[113] We meet with similar statements with reference to many African tribes. The editor of Livingstone's 'Last Journals' says that it was common on the River Shiré to hear Manganja and Ajawa people speak of tribes far away to the north who eat human bodies, and that on every occasion the fact was related with the utmost abhorrence and disgust.[114] Amongst the Dinka the accounts of the cannibalism of the Niam-Niam excites as much horror as amongst ourselves.[115] The Bakongo "shudder with repugnance at the mere mention of eating human flesh."[116] Among the Bayaka, in the Congo Free State, "cannibalism is never found, and is regarded as something quite abhorrent."[117] No intermarriage takes place between the Fans and their non-cannibal neighbours, as "their peculiar practices are held in too great abhorrence."[118] According to Burton, cannibalism "is execrated by the Efiks of Old Calabar, who punish any attempts of the kind with extreme severity."[119] Even amongst the South Sea Islanders there are tribes which have been known to view cannibalism with great repugnance.[120]

[Footnote 111: Darwin, _Journal of Researches_, p. 214. King and Fitzroy, _Voyages of the "Adventure" and "Beagle,"_ ii. 183, 189.]

[Footnote 112: Bridges, 'Manners and Customs of the Firelanders,' in _A Voice for South America_, xiii. 207. _Idem_, quoted by Hyades and Deniker, _Mission scientifique du Cap Horn_, vii. 259.]

[Footnote 113: Man, 'Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xii. 113.]

[Footnote 114: Livingstone, _Last Journals_, ii. 39.]

[Footnote 115: Schweinfurth, _Heart of Africa_, i. 158.]

[Footnote 116: Ward, _Five Years with the Congo Cannibals_, p. 37.]

[Footnote 117: Torday and Joyce, 'Ethnography of the Ba-Yaka,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxxvi. 42.]

[Footnote 118: Du Chaillu, _Explorations in Equatorial Africa_, p. 97.]

[Footnote 119: Burton, _Two Trips to Gorilla Land_, i. 216 _sq._]

[Footnote 120: Nisbet, _op. cit._ ii. 136. Turner, _Samoa_, p. 305 (Savage Islanders). Angas, _Polynesia_, p. 385 (natives of Bornabi, in the Caroline Islands). Powell, _Wanderings in a Wild Country_, p. 247 (some of the tribes in New Guinea). Calder, 'Native Tribes of Tasmania,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ iii. 23; Ling Roth, _Aborigines of Tasmania_, p. 111.]

It is true that the information which a traveller visiting a savage tribe receives as regards its attitude towards {572} cannibalism is often apt to be misleading. There is nothing as to which many savages are so reticent or the practice of which they will deny so readily as cannibalism, though at the same time they are much inclined to accuse other peoples of it.[121] The reason why they are so anxious to conceal its prevalence among themselves is of course their knowledge of the detestation in which it is held by the visiting stranger; but not infrequently they really seem to feel that it is something to be ashamed of. It has been said of some Australian natives that, "unlike many other offences with which they are justly charged, . . . this one in general they knew to be wrong," their behaviour when they were questioned on the subject showing that "they erred knowingly and wilfully."[122] At all events the reproaches of the whites have been taken to heart with remarkable readiness. Even among peoples who have been extremely addicted to it, cannibalism has disappeared with a rapidity to which, I think, there is hardly any parallel in the history of morals. Erskine wrote in the middle of the last century:--"Our experience in New Zealand has proved that this unnatural propensity can be eradicated from the habits of a whole savage nation, in the course of a single generation. I have heard it asserted that there did not exist in 1845 many New Zealand males of twenty years of age who had not, in their childhood, tasted of human flesh; yet it is perfectly well known that at the present time the occurrence of a single case of cannibalism, in any part of those islands, would attract as much notice as in any country of Europe; and that, when a native can be induced to talk on the subject, his information is given reluctantly, and with an unmistakable consciousness of degradation, and a feeling of shame that he and his {573} countrymen should ever have been liable to such a reproach."[123] Of the Bataks it was said some time ago that the rising generation began to refrain from cannibalism, and that those of them who had submitted to European rule thought with horror of the wild times when they or their ancestors were addicted to it.[124] Cieza de Leon remarks with some astonishment that, as soon as the Peruvian Incas began to put a stop to this practice among all the peoples with whom they came in contact, it was in a short time forgotten throughout their empire even by those who had previously held it in high estimation.[125] Moreover, the extinction of cannibalism has not always been due to the intervention of superior races.[126]

[Footnote 121: Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 77; Brough Smyth, _Aborigines of Victoria_, i. p. xxxvii. _sq._; Fraser, _Aborigines of New South Wales_, p. 56. Romilly, _Western Pacific_, p. 59 _sqq._ _Idem_, _From my Verandah in New Guinea_, p. 68. Powell, _op. cit._ pp. 52, 59 (natives of the Duke of York Group). Erskine, _op. cit._ p. 190 _sq._ (Fijians). Melville, _op. cit._ p. 341 (Polynesians). Reade, _op. cit._ p. 159; Kingsley, _Travels in West Africa_, p. 330 (Fans). At the same time there are many cannibals who make no attempts to conceal the practice.]

[Footnote 122: Brough Smyth, _op. cit._ i. p. xxxviii.]

[Footnote 123: Erskine, _op. cit._ p. 275 _sq._]

[Footnote 124: Buning, in _Glimpses of the Eastern Archipelago_, p. 74.]

[Footnote 125: Cieza de Leon, _Segunda parte de la Crónica del Perú_, ch. 25, p. 100.]

[Footnote 126: Waitz-Gerland, _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_, vi. 158 _sqq._ (Polynesians). Casalis, _Basutos_, p. 303. Ribot, _Psychology of the Emotions_, p. 295 _sq._ Schurtz, _Speiseverbote_, p. 26. _Cf._ Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 324.]

Even among peoples very notorious for cannibalism there are individuals who abhor the practice. Dr. Schweinfurth asserts that some of the Niam-Niam "turn with such aversion from any consumption of human flesh that they would peremptorily refuse to eat out of the same dish with any one who was a cannibal."[127] With reference to Fijian cannibalism Dr. Seemann observes:--"It would be a mistake to suppose that all Fijians, not converted to Christianity, are cannibals. There were whole towns, as for instance Nakelo, on the Rewa river, which made a bold stand against this practice, declaring that it was _tabu_ forbidden to them by their gods, to indulge in it. The common people throughout the group, as well as women of all classes, were by custom debarred from it. Cannibalism was thus restricted to the chiefs and gentry, and again amongst them there is a number . . . who never eat human flesh, nor go near the biers when any dead bodies have been brought in, and who abominate the practice as much as any white man does."[128] {574} It should also be remembered that many cannibals eat human flesh not as ordinary food, but only in special circumstances, and that their cannibalism is often restricted to the devouring of some small part of the victim's body.

[Footnote 127: Schweinfurth, _op. cit._ ii. 18 _sq._]

[Footnote 128: Seemann, _Viti_, p. 179 _sq._ _Cf._ Williams and Calvert, _op. cit._ p. 179.]

The dislike of cannibalism may be a complex feeling. In many instances sympathy for the dead is undoubtedly one of its ingredients. It is true that endo-anthropophagy is frequently described as a mark of affection, but on the other hand there are many cannibals who never eat their dead friends though they eat strangers or foes. Some cannibals exchange their own dead for those of another tribe so as to avoid feeding on their kinsmen;[129] the natives of Tana, in the New Hebrides, are said to do so "when they happen to have a particular regard for the deceased."[130] But neither affection nor regard can be the reason why savages abstain from eating their enemies. I think that aversion to cannibalism is most likely, in the first instance, an instinctive feeling akin to those feelings which regulate the diet of the various animal species. Although our knowledge of their habits in this respect is defective, there can be little doubt that carnivorous animals as a rule refuse to eat members of their own species; and this reluctance is easy to understand considering its race-preserving tendency.

[Footnote 129: Arbousset and Daumas, _Exploratory Tour to the Cape of Good Hope_, p. 123. Steinmetz, _Endokannibalismus_, pp. 22, 47.]

[Footnote 130: Brenchley, _op. cit._ p. 209.]

Moreover, the eating of human flesh is regarded with some degree of superstitious dread. This is not seldom the case even among peoples who are themselves cannibals. In Lepers' Island, in the New Hebrides, where cannibalism still prevails, the natives say that "to eat human flesh is a dreadful thing," and that a man-eater is a person who is afraid of nothing; hence "men will buy flesh when some one has been killed, that they may get the name of valiant men by eating it."[131] In those parts of Fiji where cannibalism was a national institution, only the select few, the taboo-class, the priests, chiefs, and higher orders, were deemed fit to indulge in it; and {575} whilst every other kind of food was eaten with the fingers, human flesh was eaten with forks, which were handed down as heirlooms from generation to generation, and with which the natives would not part even for a handsome equivalent.[132] The Fijians of Nakelo, again, who did not practise cannibalism, attributed to it those fearful skin diseases with which children are so often visited in Fiji.[133] The New Caledonians, who are exo-anthropophagous, believe that if a man eats a tribes-fellow he will break out into sores and die.[134] Among the Maoris no men but sacred chiefs could partake of human flesh without becoming _tapu_, in which state they could not return to their usual occupations without having the _tapu_ removed from their bodies.[135] So also among the Kwakiutl Indians of British Columbia a man who has eaten human flesh as a ceremonial rite is for a long time afterwards subject to a variety of restrictions, being considered unclean. For sixteen days he must not eat any warm food. For four months he is not allowed to blow hot food in order to cool it. For the same period he uses a spoon, dish, and kettle of his own, which are thrown away after the lapse of the prescribed time. He must stay alone in his bedroom, and is not allowed to go out of the house door but must use the secret door in the rear of the house. And for a whole year he must not touch his wife, nor is he allowed to gamble or to work.[136] Among the West African Fans, before a cannibal meal, the corpse is carried to a hut built on the outskirts of the settlement. There "it is eaten secretly by the warriors, women and children not being allowed to be present, or even to look upon man's flesh; and the cooking pots used for the banquet must all be broken. A joint of 'black brother' is never seen in the villages."[137] So also {576} among the Bambala, south of the River Congo, vessels in which human flesh has been cooked are broken and the pieces thrown away.[138] In Eastern Central Africa the person who eats a human being is believed to run a great risk; Mr. Macdonald knew a headman whose success in war was attributed to the fact that he had eaten the whole body of a strong young man, but it was supposed that if he had not been protected by powerful charms, such cannibalism might have been dangerous to him.[139]

[Footnote 131: Codrington, _op. cit._ p. 344.]

[Footnote 132: Seemann, _Viti_, pp. 179, 181 _sq._]

[Footnote 133: _Ibid._ p. 179 _sq._]

[Footnote 134: Atkinson, 'Natives of New Caledonia,' in _Folk-Lore_, xiv. 253.]

[Footnote 135: Thomson, _op. cit._ i. 147 _sq._]

[Footnote 136: Boas, 'Social Organization of the Kwakiutl Indians,' in _Report of the U.S. National Museum_, 1895, p. 537 _sq._ _Cf._ Woldt, _Kaptein Jacobsens Reiser til Nordamerikas Nordvestkyst_, p. 44 _sqq._; Mayne, _Four Years in British Columbia_, p. 256 _sq._]

[Footnote 137: Burton, _Two Trips to Gorilla Land_, i. 212.]

[Footnote 138: Torday and Joyce, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxxv. 404.]

[Footnote 139: Macdonald, _Africana_, i. 170.]

One reason for this superstitious dread of cannibalism is undoubtedly fear of the dead man's spirit, which is then supposed not to be annihilated by the act, but to become a danger to him who partakes of the corpse. The Fijian cannibals avowed "that they were always frightened at night lest the spirit of the man they had eaten should haunt them."[140] In the Luritcha tribe in Central Australia care is invariably taken to destroy the bones of those enemies who have been eaten, "as the natives believe that unless this is done the victims will arise from the coming together of the bones, and will follow and harm those who have killed and eaten them."[141] And among the Kwakiutl Indians the taboos imposed upon a cannibal are more obligatory when he has devoured a corpse than when he has contented himself with taking bites out of a living man.[142] But it may also be that the superstitious fear of cannibalism is to some extent an outcome of the natural reluctance to partake of human flesh, just as the aversion to eating certain animals may give rise to the idea that their meat is unwholesome food,[143] and as the supernatural dangers attributed to incest spring from the instinctive horror of it.[144]

[Footnote 140: Pritchard, _op. cit._ p. 372.]

[Footnote 141: Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 475.]

[Footnote 142: Boas, _loc. cit._ p. 537 _sq._ _Cf._ Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 342.]

[Footnote 143: _Supra_, ii. 332.]

[Footnote 144: _Supra_, ii. 375 _sq._]

The fact that so many peoples partake or are known to have partaken of human flesh without repugnance, or even with the greatest eagerness, by no means proves {577} that there was no original aversion to it in the human race. It is easy to imagine that the feeling of reluctance may have been overcome by other motives, such as hunger, revenge, the desire to acquire another person's courage or strength, the hope of making an enemy harmless, or of gaining supernatural benefits. And everybody knows that men and even many animals, when once induced to taste a certain food which they have previously avoided, often conceive a great liking for it. There is evidence that this also applies to cannibalism. In 1200 Egypt was afflicted with a terrible famine, in consequence of which the poor fed even upon human corpses and fell to devouring children. An eyewitness, the Arabian physician [(]Abd-Allatif, writes that, when the poor began to eat human flesh, the wonder and horror excited were such, that these crimes were in every mouth, and people were never weary of the extraordinary topic. But by degrees custom operated, and produced even a taste for such detestable repasts. Many men made children their ordinary food, eating them from pure gluttony and laying up stores of their flesh. Various modes of cooking and seasoning this kind of food were invented; and the practice soon spread through the provinces, so that there was not a single district in which cannibalism became not common. By this time it caused no longer either surprise or horror, and the matter was discussed with indifference. Diverse rich people, who could have procured other food, seemed to become infatuated, and practised cannibalism as a luxury, using murderers as their purveyors and inviting their friends to dinner, without taking too much trouble to conceal the truth.[145] There is a similar story from Polynesia. Cannibalism, we are told, was introduced into Futuna by king Veliteki in consequence of a great tempest which brought on a disastrous famine; but in time it became a dreadful scourge, which threatened to depopulate the island. The desire to eat human flesh arrived at such a point that wars no longer sufficed to {578} furnish victims in sufficient numbers, hence the people took to hunting down members of their own tribes.[146] It has been suggested that in other islands of the South Seas cannibalism likewise arose in times of great famine, and that the inhabitants, becoming used to it, acquired a taste for human flesh.[147] In Western Equatorial Africa, again, gastronomic cannibalism has been supposed to be a practical extension of the sacrificial ceremony, neither the women nor the young men being allowed to touch the dainty.[148] That such a practice may easily grow up when the beginning has been made, is well illustrated by the words of a cannibal chief who declared that he who has once indulged in a repast of human flesh will find it very difficult to abstain from it in the future.[149]

[Footnote 145: [(]Abd-Allatif, _Relation de l'Égypte_, p. 360 _sqq._]

[Footnote 146: Percy Smith, 'Futuna,' in _Jour. Polynesian Soc._ i. 37.]

[Footnote 147: Macdonald, _Oceania_, p. 196 _sq._ Powell, _Wanderings in a Wild Country_, p. 248.]

[Footnote 148: Reade, _op. cit._ p. 158.]

[Footnote 149: Powell, _op. cit._ p. 248.]